|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
quote: This is a complete misunderstanding of how science progresses. Paradigm shifts do not change past observations. The shift from a Newtonian universe to an Einsteinian one didn't change a single thing about rocks falling from cliffs. Everything about our understanding of gravity could change tomorrow, but a ball will still fall down to the ground when I let it go. Science advances by making better and more accurate descriptions of observable phenomena. Einsteinian mechanics supplanted Newtonian because it explained not only things that Newtonian physics got wrong but also by explaining everything that Newtonian physics got right. You cannot have a revolution and expect to ignore all the evidence that came before. As I said before, Newtonian physics is wrong in every single case, but Einsteinian physics explains why we thought Newtonian physics was right: The instrumentation we had available at the time was primitive enough that we couldn't physically detect the discrepancy. You need atomic clocks and jet airplanes which, sad to say, didn't exist in the 17th century. The short answer, with regard to mechanics at least, is that Newton calculated that F = dp/dt and, based upon the best observations available at the time, reduced that in a linear fashion to F = ma. It was only later that we found out that the universe isn't linear but relative and thus, we have to go back to F = dp/dt. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
quote: Oh, please. Now I know you're lying. Perhaps you could give us some references of the articles you've published? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rrhain
Since they are for all practical purposes negligible then they are still valid for normal speeds and conditions. You are of course correct in principle.Thank you for setting that straight. We must also have it noted to Stephan that we did not throw out Newton with Einstein's discoveries. I must point out that there is an everyday use in GPS systems that we use commonly enough these days that is dependent upon Einsteins theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Article by Stephen Fretwell, about 3/4 of the way down the page.
http://www.sunflower.com/~homebrew/sept00.html Being a home brewer has to be considered a plus, as far as any character evaluation goes . He's also a Vitamin C fan (another Google found link). Now, back to the real topic, already in progress. Bad Moose - Go to bed without having your beer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I'm interested in your papers - ecology and conservation are my fields. You stated,
My last major one I am hopeful will win me long-term historical recognition, as a major contributor to the discovery of cascade effects, and food-chain dynamics, as the central theory of ecology. Cascade effects, and the term trophic cascade I used in my previous post, were described by Jared Diamond in two papers in 1984: Daimond, JM, 1984a "Historic extinctions: a Rosetta Stone for understanding prehistoric extinctions" in "Quaternary Extinctions" P.Martin and R.Klein, eds, ppg: 824-862 Uni Arizona Press (a great book! Highly recommended) Diamond, JM, 1984b "'Normal' extinctions of isolated populations" in "Extinctions" MH Nitecki, ed ppg: 191-246 Uni Chicago Press Diamond 1984a is probably the defining paper on the idea. That book is where I got my Hibiscadelphus example. Although there have been a number of scientists who have contributed substantially to our understanding of the effect (see, for instance, Quinn JF, Harrison SP, 1988 "Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: evidence from biogeographic patterns" Oecologia, 75:132-140), a lot of the framework Diamond used was based on John Terborgh's work on Barro Colorado (where I got my other example). See especially Terborgh, J, 1974 "Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction-prone species" BioScience 24:715-722, which discusses the role of rarity among other things that lead to extinction in small populations. An even more extensive treatment of the cascade effect can be found in "Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities" WF Laurance and RO Bierregaard, Jr., eds1997, Uni Chicago Press - a must-read for any ecologist. I'd be very interested in reading your paper if it's available. Could you give a citation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Rrhain,
I gave in message 7, to edge, under "the best scientific method" "Is is science?" the best answer to this question I can offer right now. But the searches should justify my claim to be a trustworthy authority on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Rrhain,
As a hypothetico-deductive scientist, I am conscious of the difficulties explaining anything to a dogmatist like yourself. The former give all ideas plausibilities ranging from (but not including) zero up to (but not including )one. The latter give only the plausibilities zero or one. I can asymptotically approach your way of thinking, but you cannot imagine what I think. That's why you respond to my posts with so many non-sequiturs, and assign to me statements that I never made. For example, I said that ad hoc explanations are weaker than predictions verified, in assessing the plausibility of an idea. Clearly, if Macdougal's experiments had found only exactly a 21 gram increase, in every trial, the idea that the soul weighs about 21 grams would now be more plausible than it is. But, he got some increases that confirmed, and some that indicated that there was more than one entity present. Now, if he had done a better job with the orthodox theology hypothesis, where our idea of souls might come from, he would have examined each of his patients for demonic possession before his experiment, and predicted that those who came in praising God gloriously might have manifested a heavy soul, those who were praising God shyly, a lighter soul, and those who appeared demon possessed, several entities. If I were to replicate this study, that's part of what I would change. (Recall paintings of Michael the Angel weighing souls, as they depart to heaven-that artist would have told you that God inspired his painting, suggesting that souls might have different weights, depending on how holy they were.) But, MacDougal didn't do this, so now what? It's weak, but we turn to ad hoc revisions of our hypothesis so the next time around is better. That we can come up with a reasonable one does help the plausibility of the revised hypothesis (bodies have weighty souls, to bodies have weighty souls and possibly weighty demons possessing them.) Note that, now that we are thinking this way, we wonder what would we get if we weighed the pigs that Yeshua sent the demons into? Should we be totally surprized to find some animals experiencing a weight loss at death? And, if we were to weigh fetuses as they were killed in abortions, would we be able to tell when they acquired souls? Could not pro-choicers justify their agenda by showing that newborns were soul-less? Or protect themselves from making a terrible mistake, by discovering that fetuses got souls in their first trimester? What if we did the hypothermal thing, getting souls out of the bodies of some enquiring compassionate person in the room in which an abortion was being carried out. Would they be able to detect any soul leaving the fetus as it died? See how much fun it is, being hypothetico-deductive? Anyway, ad hoc is weak, to be used as a last resort. But it not illogical. It is a part of the Lakatosian research programme. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Rrhain,
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I say something, you say I completely misunderstand the subject, then you say pretty much what I said. Another conflict between dogmatism and HD science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
And clearly, my self-aggrandizing comment, unsuccessfully light-hearted, stemmed from drinking one too many of those beers! But thanks for the encouragement.
If you drink a lot of beer, you need the vitamin C! Steve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
Sorry Buz, I'm a 'doubting Thomas' on stuff like this, and I'm also a bit late in responding anyway. First, I don't give great credence to Fox-News on anything. While there may be some truth to the reporting they give, to me it is highly dramatized, with an overly positive bias; almost a good comparison with the former 1970's TV series, "In search of..." with Leonard Nimoy. I think that if we are to believe this story, then we will also have to believe in your idea of the devil & his demons taking posession of people who are not christians. After all, it is part of (some) christian belief that they cannot be posessed by demons because their "bodies are the temple of the Holy-Spirit". However, you may not believe this. Second, this is heresay because the "source" in the story is only a witness, not the doctors, or the 66year old f__t. Thirdly, How can you trust the doctors who may be demon-posessed themselves, or did they get their degrees from the 'Magic Hindu College of the 30,000 gods' which has demon posessed teachers?
I think the 66year old f__t is hungry for attention. [This message has been edited by Prozacman, 12-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Quetzal,
Besides checking up on message 7, to edge, on the thread, the best scientific method, Is it science, You'll find ideas about "cascades" in my 1972 book, Populations in a Seasonal Environment, Princeton University Press, I have a graph showing the decline of open-nesting birds in the presence of an increase in blue jays, due to human feeding stations. When discussing this with others, there were no data, but I anecdotally noted that we had wood pewees nesting on the K-State campus where crows were nesting. The crows kept the blue jays away. I submitted a grant proposal in 1973, (rejected) trying to test these ideas with parula warblers, crows, and blue jays, using feeders. But my main claim to fame is my paper in the 1977 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, on the Regulation of Plant Communities by the Food Chains exploiting Them, followed eventually by my (hopeful) tour-de-force, "Food chain dynamics, the Central Theory of Ecology" in Oikos, 1987. Not that Diamond needed to get or got any of these ideas from me, (although we did attend the MacArthur Memorial Conference together, where I was discussing them.) Nor did I ever use the word, cascades, which is pretty sexy, or apply the concept as Diamond did. Even what I did do was heavily borrowed from Hairston, Smith, and Slobodkin, and it's development heavily dependent on Oksanen's brilliance. But, the Fenno-scandians insisted I write the Central Theory paper, and it validates the idea somewhat as Darwin's "Origin..." validates evolution. My reservations about evolution, by the way stem from my days at Princeton, where I saw on Henry Horn's door, the sign, "The origin of specious by the selection of natural means." You'll have to ask Henry whether he was putting evolutionists down. Hope you get a better answer than I did. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Hey, Quetzal,
I just noted that my name on post 7, the best scientific method, has been changed to Stephen ben Yeshua, from Stephen Fretwell (see post by Minnemooseus). You'll have to search under the Fretwell name, on the topics that have taken off. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coragyps, all I can do is give you my personal thoughts on this. It's a mysterious subject which I don't claim to speak with a lot of authority and I don't think many can. Judging from the one experience I had which I posted about how I (Christian) was attacked by a demon and had it not been that I was well doctrinated in how to deal with the evil, that is to rebuke/resist in the name of Jesus because Jesus is greater I would have failed in opposing it. Christians can do this with confidence and authority. However if you read on I related the experience of another Christian who was not indoctrinated with the right stuff to resist and he was overcome by the forces of evil, Christian or not.
To answer your questions, remember I said I was very tired from a very stressful day before the dream? I had an auction at my business and lost my shirt after a whole lot of work to get it up. This also may apply to disease, especially mental disease because demons work with the psyche of the mind. Deception of all kinds leave way for the false and evil to prevail. Things like Transcendental Metitation, Yoga, Wicca Buddhist no thought, and other Eastern stuff often sweeps the mind clean so as to allow the demons and their doctrines to fill the vacuum, so to speak. Drugs, both phamaceutical and otherwise may also affect the mind so as to lower the resistance. It's interesting the Greek for witchcraft is pharmacia/drugs. Don't forget the Columbine school shooting killer kids were on ritalin, as so many are and it's terrible stuff that ought not be allowed, but the [pharmacia] interests are powerful and money talks. As I said, this's a complex difficult subject and imo a lot of factors can play a role in understanding the mystery of evil. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Prozacman. I like Fox because at least they're not afraid to report stuff the others censor out for ideological reasons. They are, to a point "fair and balanced."
I hear what you are saying and certainly I can't be sure about anything, but I do believe the power of demons is very great and yes, one or more possessing this old fella could be the source of his power to live beyond. This likely raises another question, being "how do you discern between the good and the evil. My answer to that, in case you're about to ask is that the Bible and the Holy Spirit do that. If it's not scriptural that cancels out the good. From there, there's a gift of the Spirit listed among the gifts called the "discerning of the Spirits." Demons are known to quote truth, scripture and even say good things about Christ, but it's what they say about him or refuse to say that gives their ruse away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Stephen ben Yeshua writes: I just noted that my name on post 7, the best scientific method, has been changed to Stephen ben Yeshua, from Stephen Fretwell (see post by Minnemooseus). You'll have to search under the Fretwell name, on the topics that have taken off. This is a bug. Searches for messages by Stephen ben Yeshua should return all messages by him under any of his aliases, including Stephen Fretwell. More generally, searches for messages by anyone should return all their messages under all of their aliases. The bug is an oversight and is easily fixed. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024